M/s v. Authority U/S 7A of EPF and Mp Act

Petition under Article 226 of lhe constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the Rature of wRlr oF MANDAMUS decraring the action of Respondent no. 2 had issued Prohibitory order vide proceedings No. TS/Ro/HyD-ll/s24s2lR- cell/S1902/RCNo.13l2o24l2o24- 2sts27, dated 19.06.2024 issued to the Branch Manager, state Bank of rndia, Narayanpet Branch, Narayanpet-Sog2.r 0 revying an amount of Rs. 55,78,874l-( Rupees Fifty Five Lakhs seventy Eight rhousand Eight Hundred and seventy Four) towards statutory Dues for the period 6t2017 to 04/209 attaching the Bank Account of the Petitioner of the Respondent No.4 Bank directing the Manager to transfer an amount of Rs 55'78'8741 towards Contributions and also consequential Prohibitory Order No TS/RO-/HYD- llts2 s2tR.cELL/RCNo.131202412024-202511096dated30.09-2024issuedby Respondent no. 3 directing the Respondent No. 5 and 6 to recover the unpaid bills withtheofficeand.remittheSametotheEPFOinfavouroftheRegionalPF commissioner, Hyderabad as it being arbitrary, illegal, unjustified, in violation of principles of natural iustice pending the matter before the central Government lndustrialTribunalCumProvidentFundAppellantTribunal,atHyderabad. IA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under se<;tion 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the Proceedings of Prohibitory order vide proceedihgs No.TS/RO/HYD- ltt52452tR-cell/51902/RCNo. 13t202412024-25t527daled 19.06.2024 issued to the Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Narayanpet Branch, NarayanpeGs0g210 levying an amount of Rs. 55,78,8741 ( Rupees Fifty Five Lakhs Seventy Eight Thousand Eight Hundred and Seventy Four) towards statutory Dues for the period 6t2017 to 04/209 attaching the Bank Account of the Petitioner of the Respondent No.4 Bank directing the Manager to transfer an amount of Rs. 55,78,874l- towards contributions and also consequential Prohibitory order No. TS/RO-/HYD- lvs24s2tR.cELL/RC No. 13t2024t2124-2025t1096 dated 30.09.2024 issued by Respondent no. 3 directing the Respondent No. 5 and 6 to recover the unpaid bills with the office and remit the same to the EPFO in favour of the Regional PF commissioner pending hearing of the matter before the central Government lndustrial Tribunal cum Provident Fund Appellant Tribunal, at Hyderabad. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI M. KIRAN KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent Nos.l to 3: SRI G. VENKATESWARLU' SC Gounsel forthe Respondent Nos.S and 6: SRI N. SREEDHAR REDDY, SC The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR WRIT PETITION N0.37126 0F 20/24 ORDER Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri G. Venkateswarlu, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.l to 3, Sri N. Sreedhar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.S and 6 and with the consent of learned Counsel appearing for the parties, the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal at the stage of admission.

2. Having regard to the nature of ljs involved and manner of disposal of the Writ petition, this Court is of the view that notice to unofhcial respondent is not necessary for adjudication of the present Writ Pe tition. 3. Shorn of unnecessary details the case of the petitioner in brief, is that aggrieved by the proceedings of the 2"d respondent dated 28.O3.2024, the petitioner has fiIed an Appeal before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal at Hyderabad on OS.Og.2024; that along with the Appeal hled, it has also hled interlocutory application seeking stay of recovery of EpF amount demanded 2 i&- under [he proceedings dated 28.O3'2O24; and that the r;aid stay application is yet to be taken up for hearing' Learned (lounsel for the petitioner further subr oits that 4 . the Appeal f-rle1 by the petitioner on 05 08 2024 akrng with interlocutory application seeking stay of recovery of the amount in terms of tht: order dated 28.03'2024 is received rride USR No.473 ol 2a24 and is yet to be numbered'

5. Petitioner further contends that though the said Appeal was hled v"'ith some delay, the condone delay petition u'as heard by the Tribr-Ln al on 27.12.2024 and the delay in filing the said Appeal was corLdoned, though the copy of the order is yet to be made available to him. 6. Petitioner further contends that if the respondent authorities we:e allowed to proceed with the recovery of the amount pursuant to the order dated 28 O3 2024, Lhe w,ruld become infructuous and as such application respondent authorities are to be restrained from recovering the amount pendirg consideration of the stay applicatic'n by the Tribuna l.

7. Per contra, learned Starding Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 3 by drawing attention of the Court to communicatiorr dated 24 .12.2024 addressed by the sth J respondent to the 6n respondent, would submit that the authorities have already issued a cheque for an amount of Rs.55,79,374 /- as being the dues of EpF from the petitioner, urde cheque No. i47180 d,ated 23.12.2024 and. thus the authorities have already recovered the aforesaid amount. 8. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that since the aforesaid amount is already recovered, in the event of the petitroner succeeding in the Appeal filed by it, the amount would be refunded / adj u sted towards the future payment in terms of the provisions of the Act. 9. I have taken note of lhe respective contentions urged. 10. It is settled position of law that the remedy of Appeal provided under the Act cannot be made nugatory by the authorities taking steps to recover the amount pending consideration of the interlocutory application hled seeking stay of the collection. Though the petitioner claims to have filed an Appeal along with an interlocutory application seeking stay of recovery, it is to be noted that the said Appeal filed on O5.O8.2O24 was with a delay and thus the Tribunal was required to first consider the application filed for condoning the delay in hiing of the Appear. Since, the petitioner had asserted of the Tribunal having condoned the delay on 22.12.2024, t:ne \$\ 4 Appeal as filed try the petitioner on 05 08 2O24 uide USR No'473 of 2024 is now required to be taken on record' 11. On the Tribunal taking on record the aforesairl Appeal frled by the p€ titioner, interlocutory application hled therein seeking stay of ;:ecovery of payment would have to be considered on its merits. However, the said stage has not yet cor, e' since the condone delay petition is stated to have been allowed only on 27.12.2O?4 12. However, in the mean time if the respondent authorities recover the zrmounts from the respondent Nos 5 and 6 then the stay applicatiot-r becomes infructuous even assuming Lhat the petitioner is recluired to make payment of 7 5o/o of the dermand as per the Act.

13. Since, the respondent Nos.S and 6 claim to have paid the amount of Rs.55,79,3741- to respondent Nos 2 anrl 3 uide cheque bearinSi No.147180 d.aLed 23.12'2024, this Court is of the view that in the event of the respondent authorities not presenting the aforesaid instrument for encashment rvith their bankers as of tlate, the respondent authorities, in particular the respondent Nors.2 and 3 are to be restrained from prest:nting the same for enctrshment ti11 the Tribunal adjudicates the stay application {iled in the APPeal. ,-. / ./ 5

74. Accordingly, the respondent Nos.2 and 3 are hereby restrained from encashing the cheque bearing No. 147g0 dated 23.12.2024 or any other negotiable instrument as issued bj, respondent Nos.S and 6 in respect of the amounts payable to petitioner, if not already encahsed, till orders are passed by the Tribunal in the stay application. 15. It is made clear that in the event of condone delay petition filed by the petitioner in the Appeal is dismissed by the Tribunal, the protection granted hereby would not be applicable. 16. Subject to the above direction, the Writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition sha11 stand closed. SD/.P. PADMANABHA R DDY ASSISTANTRKI RAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER L The Secretary Mlnistry of Labour and Employment, Govt. of lndia, Shram 2. The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, (Compliance ll- Madhapur) and ShaKi Bhawan, Rafi Marg, New Delhi - 1 i 0d01 . Narayanpet, Mahabubnagar -509210. Authority U/S 7A of EPF and MP Act, 1952 Eniplovdes provident Fun'd Organization. Regional Office, Hyderabad. 3. The Regional P.F. Commissionei - ll and Recovery Officer, Regional Office, Employees Provident Fund Organization. Regionai Office, Hyd6rabad. 4. The Branch !1gnager, State Bahk of lndia, O[p. ManoharTaikies Civil Lane, 5. The Senior Accounts Officer, Operation Circle, TGSPDCL, Narayanpet 6. The G-errera!-Mq1qg9r/SP, Corp - ffice Mint Compound, Hyder;bad 7. One CC to Sri M. Kiran Kumai. Advocate IOPUC] 8. One CC to Sri G. Venkateswarlu, SCIOPUCI 9. One CC to Sri N. Sreedhar Reddy, SCIOPUCI 10.Two CD Copies ,!, TJ BS I t HIGH COURT CG TODAY DATED:0210112025 ORDER WP.No.37126 o12024 q r\E.'iT4is o 0,i .:;'l'l !tl?5 ( v a .L \:.-.. '.* DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS ! , i i I I